<p>Does anyone know if Emory has recently published a strategic plan for the University?</p>
<p>[Emory</a> | Strategic Plan](<a href=“http://www.emory.edu/strategicplan/the-plan/index.html]Emory”>http://www.emory.edu/strategicplan/the-plan/index.html)</p>
<p>It’s not recent (2010), but here ya go.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>The document is weak, and it was put in place in 2006. Are you kidding? The president reaches 10 years on July 30. He was there for the SAT scandal and he just made the unbelievably inappropriate speech citing the 3/5 rule as an example of legislative compromise. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees has been in place since 2000. I believe the University could really use new blood at the top.</p>
<p>The board of trustees is surprisingly dominated by law, Coca-Cola, and religion. Very, very light in technology and science. Some medical experts.</p>
<p>Again, everyone knows this. However, strategic plans as documents are always quite weak (to the point where they have been questioned by some academicians). I would mainly look at the progress/implementation documents to see if there is at least an effort to follow the plan. There kind of is, though the 2008-2009 crash threw it off track some. There is some evidence that they are attempting to follow the general framework outlined and that there is some progress (some of the more concrete goals such as improvement in facilities and hiring of faculty are indeed taking place even though some projects were thrown off by a couple of years). Though I would indeed argue that this has much less to do with Wagner and administrative figures and more to do with organization of certain faculty members. For example, I think Emory’s success with establishing very solid interdisciplinary teaching and scholarship has largely been a faculty led “grass-roots” effort. I would argue that it would be better if the administration was not interfering with such efforts through its poor decision making (for example, cutting certain departments is not ideal if you want to continue to propel the caliber of interdisciplinary activities. Getting rid of ILA definitely hurts). </p>
<p>The problem I have with Wagner is that he is a “build, build, build” president. Stereotypical of an engineer. He doesn’t seem to think much about what will happen in those new buildings. He seems to hope that the presence of the new building will just automatically lead to improvements. In some cases, this is true (like with Public Health and Theology), but in other cases, it is not (like the math and science center. The environmental studies program is likely the most robust thing there in terms of quality. There have been no improvements in math, CS, and physics. Okay, well math somehow picked up some good faculty, but can it keep them?). He also discusses the university and its goals using very vague language or making suggestions that he is not actually willing to facilitate. Often provost and some deans (not the one for the college, Foreman. The dude seems like an amateur and should keep his mouth closed until he learns more about Emory. Emory and Rice do not have the same academic structuring) have more concrete and greater depth of insight than he exhibits. Presidents like Laney were much stronger (in terms of quality of leadership, not aggression) and had a clearer, more nuanced (beyond the “build baby build” attitude) vision from what I’ve read and heard.</p>
<p>Yes: I believe the BOT has been known to be more representative of old Emory and has yet to catch up. However, seeing Wagner, I am skeptical about the influence of having too many science and tech oriented people there (I mean, many elite institutions are not presided over by scientist. Many/most have social science or humanities backgrounds and this may be beneficial). This statement comes from an aspiring scientist by the way.</p>
<p>Whatever you think, just don’t count on Emory improving much any time in the near future.</p>
<p>I will agree with that. It takes time, that’s for sure. It is not easy. Emory kind of looks like the Virginia episode right now, but with plans of restructuring. If there were to be any benefits to any of the restructuring or “new plans”, I bet it would take about a decade (maybe a little less) to actually see them. Nothing can be done that would suddenly lead to “improvement”. Emory will likely just continue its long period of superficial improvement while it works things out. It would be interesting if the school managed to finally improve its position in the admissions armsrace though. At many schools, improvements in this category has outpaced “actual” institutional improvements. The two now seem somewhat independent. With good marketing of our superficial improvements, it should be able to make some progress. I mean, the other places are amazing at marketing that sort of thing, which attracts students (maybe for the wrong reasons, but nonetheless attracts them).</p>
<p>^You mean attracting superficial students? We don’t need or want any more of them. I know it’s a lot to ask for 18-year-olds to have “depth,” but it’s not a lot to ask that they at least try to develop some of it. In fact, a small minority of them aren’t superficial at all and have real depth. These are the guys you want to attract; they’re already two steps ahead of everyone else and will most likely contribute tremendously to the community in general.</p>
<p>You mentioned this, but, yea it is a lot to ask from people who are 18.</p>
<p>A lot of people apply here because of it’s ranking (this is one of the few things the guy in the other thread was right about). I think most people who do not are from Georgia. </p>
<p>Personally, I came here because of the ranking, the app was short, the weather was nice, and it was a metropolitan area - maybe bad reasons looking back, but I was 18 year old kid. Can’t hold me responsible for my reasoning.</p>
<p>I think I’ve mentioned on this forum a couple of times: I went through a phase, about a year long, where I wish I had went to Brown instead. Weather and city size didn’t seem like good enough reasons anymore. The reasons I chose Emory were pretty superficial, and , for the first time I realiezed how important prestige is when looking for careers.</p>
<p>Now, life is good. I don’t know how life would’ve been at Brown (I’m sure I would’ve liked it there), but I love who I am now. I’ve got the friends I’ve always wanted, the career I wanted, and have made huge steps in becoming to person I wanted to be. I look back and I realize that I’m a much better person now than I was back when I was 18, and Emory has a lot to do with that. I’m going to be very sad when I leave here.</p>
<p>I’ve only met a couple people not from Georgia who have said Emory was their first choice, but I’ve met fewer people who didn’t love it here. The experience the other guy had - that is not the norm.</p>
<p>So, yea, I don’t think it’s a big deal that we attract superficial students. Obviously, I would prefer not to. I honestly think the majority of the people here grow to like it, even if they were initially less willing ot come here. Hopefully, they, like me, realize how much better of a person they have become since they were 18.</p>
<p>Kaukana- I know that what you want to ensure that your kid is getting the best education he can. If it makes you feel better, if Emory does indeed drop - and we’ve exhausted this topic (it won’t) -
your kid will already be in grad school or have work experience or whatever and where he got his Bachelors will matter extremely little.</p>
<p>Once again, we won’t suddenly disappear. I’m not going to rehash what’s been said already. Just want to emphasize that there are a plethora of reasons we won’t.</p>
<p>That being said - **** the budget cuts</p>
<p>I have “evolved” (a term that is being thrown all over the place in politics right about now) on the issue of superficial admissions. I mind it to a degree, but it wouldn’t really matter as long as the admissions staff was taking a more detailed look at what they want in students how Emory fits into that equation. For example, if we attracted “superficial” people, can they at least be more passionate and ambitious types (not fake, “I don’t even know why I want to go into this field, but will do anything to get there” type of ambition)? For example, it would be nice one day if Emory was able to attract (as in, enroll) the type that has either attended or placed in Intel Competitions, International Olympiads, and things of that nature. No matter for the reason for these people coming, I know that they will ultimately try hard to get something legit out of an Emory education because they already come in with a high level of passion for or talent (as in, this talent extends beyond doing more stereotypical HS ECs within the field or simply making great grades in it) within a subject that goes beyond merely wanting to use the subject as vehicle into professional school or wherever. I’m fine with them coming here for the rank or because they did not get into some ideal place as long as they intend and try very hard to make a realistic contribution to the environment here. I feel it is easy to develop a love or passion for Emory if you already have or are willing to develop a passion for something that Emory offers. The problem comes when students don’t care for that and everything done at Emory has much less to do with their actual interest, but instead has more to do with a series of checklists.</p>
<p>As for the strategic plan: I believe I’ve read somewhere that they have basically begun to disband/complete it and rework another strategic course in light of the new situations, so it doesn’t really matter. They implemented some parts of it well up to this point and some not so well. Hopefully new developments will help address the weak areas.</p>
<p>Thanks for your heartfelt input Bernie. Best of luck with your future plans.</p>
<p>It’s also a problem of Emory’s culture if they don’t cultivate the potential that most of the admitted students have. Many California students come to UCLA and UC Berkeley (and many of the mid tier UCs like Davis, Santa Cruz, and Irvine) without much passion for the school. They chose it because it was the best one they got into, but for whatever reason UCLA (and to a lesser extent the other UCs) manages to instill a love for the school that extends beyond its sports teams to its abundant extracurricular opportunities and seems to instill a sense of passion in students who, in high school, did the stereotypical “pleasing college” ECs. </p>
<p>But seriously, there are so many passionate people at Emory that if a student puts in more than an iota of effort he should be able to find someone going far beyond the required curriculum. Whenever I go to the Emory campus, there’s almost a palatable energy and enthusiasm whether it manifests itself in one of the numerous acapella groups, extreme amounts of community service (there are very few campuses as pro volunteering as Emory), the various cultural nights, or one of the hundreds of other things that happen every year. The people I’ve met at Emory have motivated me to go beyond the textbooks and explore all interests. The trick is to find these people, because they seem to be less obvious than students at some of our peer schools.</p>
<p>Fortunately, what has now become the Emory cliche slogan “passion is contagious” is true, so I’ll agree with that. I wonder if the most visible part of Emory culture (what you mentioned) is completely student driven or if it is driven by the external forces (or deficiencies in it). For example, on both an academic and EC front, I think it is also important for advisors and potential faculty mentors to encourage students. What I sometimes (or often) see at Emory is something like the following: A student does indeed come into Emory passionate about a subject area freshman year, but is pre-med or something, racks up a couple of B grades and decides “must avoid being challenged or taking risks at all costs” and then begins to only select easy/bad/classes against their own intellectual interests to “protect” themselves. However, usually the logic is non-sense. There will be a student who is a biology major, gets to organic chemistry with a good but difficult professor and scores a B grade (and freaks out I guess). Unfortunately, they are silly enough to select their biology courses based upon that experience (supposedly, biology is the strength or interest, not chemistry). So, if the person is extremely interested in say “X biology” course taught by “Y, very good, but challenging professor”, they say “no, I can only take these courses with these people regardless, because I made a B in 2 courses over in the chemistry department”. Not only this, but often the student in damage control mode will sometimes bring the mentality into their EC life, and settle for a series of “safe” (as in bandwagon ones that usually everyone else with a certain major or interest is doing) activities that seem as if they directly fit into their career plans instead pursuing something more unique that they are genuinely interested in and would do extraordinarily well at. </p>
<p>For example, a pre-med friend of mines once said “I need to be in the service frat as it is one of the only opps. I’ll have to do service”. I literally asked them why they couldn’t do something else such as an independent project or get heavily involved in Volunteer Emory’s activities. They seemed not to have an answer. They likely just wanted the safety that came from the name and mission of the specific organization (because they can at least write “service frat” on the resume). I feel like there needs to be some sort of guidance to prevent students from going down this path of damage control for a huge chunk of their Emory career. Things like phMO don’t help when they suggest a series of random classes that are supposedly easy when a student is slightly concerned about their science GPA for example (one person I know got screwed by such advice). This is especially the case when very elite peers are doing what is essentially the opposite. Advisors (especially those with less students who have the time) need to sit down and actually ask directly about the students interests and lead them in the right direction (luckily, I had an awesome and honest bio advisor who told me who was worth taking based on their pedagogy. She would not recommend taking a crappy teacher for a grade, ever). </p>
<p>Also, risk taking or stepping outside the box needs to be encouraged more. I would like to see more Emory College (pre-health or not) students being aware of and expressing interest in say, the Emory Global Health Case Competition. Such experiences that many on campus don’t participate in seem like wonderful dual opportunities in the academic/intellectual and EC sphere. It’s an awesome intellectual challenge while also being a great socialization and networking opportunity. One doesn’t have to always pursue the stereotypical organizations and activities that most of the campus does. A lot more can likely be done to encourage us to continue to pursue any passion we had regardless of grades or anything else. In addition, I think entrepreneurial endeavors is likely the next big thing to be capitalized on this campus. I feel there is a lot of energy in this area when compared to “near peers” and it will be even better if some of the above issues with risk-aversion and the “damage control” mentality is solved. Emory students with passion and ideas clearly know how to make things happen. We just need more people to hold onto and then act on their ideas and passions. Administration, faculty, and students have a role to play in this arena.</p>
<p>So who is the guy out there in real life actually doing all of these “improvements” at Emory instead of just talking on internet forums?</p>
<p>It starts with very small things I think. I, for example just try to mentor and also keep in close contact with key faculty members to give them suggestions on how to at least make the experience in their departments better (For example, Dr. Spell and Eisen, for example once asked me for advice to give freshman considering taking bio and chemistry and also asked me what could be done in the case they had AP credits. Or what advice should be given to people in terms of math courses needed for the major). If you’re close to certain faculty members and tell them how you feel about certain issues based on experiences you have had and observed, some of them will listen and pass on and perhaps even implement the suggestions. Faculty who actually care are receptive to constructive criticism/ideas (and not just whining about how hard a class is). </p>
<p>I also once contacted a person that was involved in biology curriculum development (this was after I took the course) and told them that the nature of the lecture courses needed to change some (I specifically said that more teachers should maybe at least attempt to integrate things like case studies, and pbl into their course and should also rely at least a little less on MC. I cited examples from institutions with larger sections of intro. biology who relied less heavily on it). I imagine that I didn’t really had an effect myself, but maybe others were dissatisfied with the course as well. Today, I do notice that a lot more sections are integrating active learning elements into the teaching and even people like Spell have added short answer and problem solving to their midterms. In addition, Passalaucqua is a permanent case-based option. I think folks in these depts are aware of what works, but they may fear how they are received. Apparently such pedagogical methods are received well when implemented properly (as people like Passalaucqua and Gilson have recently won Crystal Apples). </p>
<p>Another small movement came about in chemistry when some of the freshman who recently took Soria’s class started a petition (to be honest, these people, who I mentored, told me about it, and I was very cynical given the inertia in the chemistry department. I was for the concept, but feared the trouble it could start.) to get him reinstated as the freshman orgo. teacher. They either wanted that or to at least ensure that some of the integrity and reputation of the course remains in tact. It actually spurred a series of meetings with regard to the way the course should be run by the profs. currently teaching it. In addition, these same students are attempting to do a feasibility study on a biochem option. Their concerns on both issues is being entertained. </p>
<p>Grassroot efforts and honesty on our part can begin to make changes, even if it seems impossible. </p>
<p>I could mention more, but as you can tell, I am biased toward improving things like science education. Basically, if students were actually demanding certain things beyond better grades and you established relationships with certain folks, you can get somewhere. You must offer solutions and do more than just whine. You have to go beyond accepting the status quo and thinking that “it’s like this everywhere else”. Even if it is, doesn’t mean it’s right.</p>
<p>Bernie12, you are the real deal!</p>